28 day check - logged as P1 or PUT?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So is a training Captain giving Instruction for the pupose of the issue of a licence or rating a you suggest?
Or are they merely acting in a mentoring role after the issue of a type rating which was carried out by a type rating instructor?
Just curious as to who is not understanding the rules.
Whats P1/s, PICUS or any other flavour of the same thing have to do with it?
I understand the regulations just fine thank you and I see nothing in my post that attempts to make them say anything, I merely asked a question, it was you who came out with the insults.
If it does there will be a few training captains and airlines in trouble!
Just curious as to who is not understanding the rules.
Whats P1/s, PICUS or any other flavour of the same thing have to do with it?
I understand the regulations just fine thank you and I see nothing in my post that attempts to make them say anything, I merely asked a question, it was you who came out with the insults.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: heathrow
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So is a training Captain giving Instruction for the pupose of the issue of a licence or rating a you suggest?
The requirement for training on subsequent types is a matter for the CAA and the operator to decide and agree and publish in the operations manual.
The operations manual could be considered to be the law but only for operations within that airline, they could in fact write any requirement in that they like but of course it has to be approved by the CAA before the AOC is issued.
If a PPL wanted to put a 747 on his licence he would have to have a pilot with an instructors rating and a type rating on the 747.
But subsequently any pilot could give that PPL instruction on a 747, he would need a 747 rating of course
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what you are saying is that a pilot requires a Type Rating Instructor to train them for a type rating and after that they go onto the line for line training which is with a training captain who is not an Instructor? But they are not actually receiving Instruction they are just having line training as they can already fly the type having received a type rating?
My friend has multiple type ratings on his license and is a training captain. He tells me that training captains do not instruct on type they just do line training on airline ops in that particular type. He tells me that a type rating instructor is required to teach for a type rating.
A ppl requires an instructor to train them for a class rating after which they could fly and be checked out by another PPL. On the line so to speak?
You have chosen to argue with me on this subject yet at no time have I suggested that a club checkout requires an Instructor and in fact if you read back through this thread you will see that in fact I was one of the people that pointed out that as an Instructor I generally don't log P1 for a checkout.
Just seems another example of you looking to have a fight with me rather than debate........
So are we going to discuss the P1/s, PICUS semantics again?
My friend has multiple type ratings on his license and is a training captain. He tells me that training captains do not instruct on type they just do line training on airline ops in that particular type. He tells me that a type rating instructor is required to teach for a type rating.
A ppl requires an instructor to train them for a class rating after which they could fly and be checked out by another PPL. On the line so to speak?
You have chosen to argue with me on this subject yet at no time have I suggested that a club checkout requires an Instructor and in fact if you read back through this thread you will see that in fact I was one of the people that pointed out that as an Instructor I generally don't log P1 for a checkout.
Just seems another example of you looking to have a fight with me rather than debate........
So are we going to discuss the P1/s, PICUS semantics again?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: heathrow
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He tells me that training captains do not instruct on type they just do line training on airline ops in that particular type.
You have chosen to argue with me on this subject yet at no time have I suggested that a club checkout requires an Instructor and in fact if you read back through this thread you will see that in fact I was one of the people that pointed out that as an Instructor I generally don't log P1 for a checkout.
I think you are struggling to separate the rules that apply to airline training and the rules that apply to flight instruction in the classic sense.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: heathrow
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say the 1179 type thing is a bit of a mis nomer I did my Aztec rating training 27 years ago but I cannot ever remember doing a twin rating as such and the 1179 examiner who was my instructor did not hold an instructors rating. I seem to remember there was a query at the time but it was certainly not resolved by further flying training.
Oh yes should add
line training and base training are different, you need to get familiar with the type a first by base trainings, circuits etc.. can be done in the sim, if sim has JAR approval.
Line training is learning to operate the aircraft within the companies operations on line. If you were just doing a type rating you would not do line training
Oh yes should add
line training and base training are different, you need to get familiar with the type a first by base trainings, circuits etc.. can be done in the sim, if sim has JAR approval.
Line training is learning to operate the aircraft within the companies operations on line. If you were just doing a type rating you would not do line training
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simple. The designated check pilot simply informs the hirer, on behalf of the owner of the plane, that he/she is not allowed to rent/borrow said plane from the owner. And please contact the owner to see what further steps are required. No licenses are revoked, the CAA is not informed, no legal action taken. Simply a statement that the owner does not want the hirer to fly his aircraft. That's it.
It works very well, we have one interested person who never even made it off the ground!
J.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: heathrow
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the answer is to do what around 14 Bagladeshi's said on the motorway when stopped in a vehicle that should have held around six by the Police, Gathered on the hard shoulder the policeman asked who was the driver the reply was.
"We all are sir!"
"We all are sir!"
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed and that is what happens in our group. We all own an equal share of the aircraft however we have a group 'Chairman', he has designated members of the group as able to carry out check flights with interseted parties. So if, say, I flew with someone and they were fine, I would inform the Chairman that they were ok on the flight, likewise if they made a hash of it I would just tell him as such as well.
It is also only works in group situations where the checking pilot is willing to pay part of the costs of the flight that they have been asked to check a pilot on.
----------
llanfairpg,
You need to read your part D (as well as parts of the part A).
Remember that you do not need to have an FTO if you have an AOC.
Regards,
DFC
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are very lucky that no one has challenged the situation. A problem could arise if your check pilot stops someone before they even get off the ground and that person asks for the authority that they have to comment on another qualified pilots ability, what training they completed and to what standard they are certified.
Now translate this to the aviation world. Why can the owner not specify his own rules, above and beyond what's legally required, for the hirer to follow?
The only "authority" a check pilot needs (even if he just holds a PPL) is a notice from the owner saying that he is authorized to conduct check flights, on behalf of the owner, for the purpose of determining whether a prospective or recurrent hirer meets the qualifications and flying ability/technique that the owner demands.
It is also only works in group situations where the checking pilot is willing to pay part of the costs of the flight that they have been asked to check a pilot on.
Last edited by BackPacker; 11th Jan 2008 at 22:35.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: heathrow
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The operations manual could be considered to be the law but only for operations within that airline, they could in fact write any requirement in that they like but of course it has to be approved by the CAA before the AOC is issued.
You are very lucky that no one has challenged the situation. A problem could arise if your check pilot stops someone before they even get off the ground and that person asks for the authority that they have to comment on another qualified pilots ability, what training they completed and to what standard they are certified.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After reading 11 pages, boy am I glad I don't fly club aicraft!
Was it 28 pages someone predicted?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only "authority" a check pilot needs (even if he just holds a PPL) is a notice from the owner saying that he is authorized to conduct check flights, on behalf of the owner, for the purpose of determining whether a prospective or recurrent hirer meets the qualifications and flying ability/technique that the owner demands.
You could never let anyone else know that you did not think the pilot was up to scratch as such a statement could be defamatory and as a private pilot with no credibility in checking or training you would not be off to a good start.
Then of course you are in a catch 22 situation - if that person goes and hires your neighbour's aircraft and wrecks it, your neighbour may reasonably ask you why you failed to let them know or why you failed to record the poor performance in the pilot's logbook.
----------
The simple situation is that unless a proper system of credible checking is in place then there is no point in having a 28 day checkout requirement as it is meaningless.
Getting one PPL to check another lacks credibility and performs no function. Having an instructor check a pilot against the required standards has the advantage of credibility.
----------
Only if the designated check pilot is listed as PIC. But we're trying to convince you that it's perfectly legal, and practical, for the prospective hirer to be PIC and as such pay for all the costs of the flight.
Of course it is silly at the least to say that you can not be pilot in command of the aircraft you have not flown for the past 28 days and then say that on the 29th day not only will you be pilot in command but you must also take this other person with you without the option of cost sharing..........One might ask if the 28 day rule in that case was simply a free flying excuse for the other member of the group.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: heathrow
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You could never let anyone else know that you did not think the pilot was up to scratch as such a statement could be defamatory and as a private pilot with no credibility in checking or training you would not be off to a good start.
Getting one PPL to check another lacks credibility and performs no function. Having an instructor check a pilot against the required standards has the advantage of credibility.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you say that the prospective hirer can be pilot in command then you can not say who the passenger that they carried in the front seat must be. The loading and everything else with regard to the flight is the responsibility of the pilot in command and they can quite rightly decide not to carry anyone............after all you have permitted them to be pilot in command and the decision after that is their's and their's alone.
The problem with such simple thinking is that the checker lacks credibility and if the person being checked disagrees then it is a 50/50 argument.
An owner or operator has some discretion over the conditions under which they allow an otherwise legal,current,insured pilot capable of acting as PIC on their airplane to fly their airplane.
One of those discretions is to require a flight in which a 3rd party accompanies the pilot.
If the pilot thinks the 3rd party "lacks credibility" then he should find another operator with a credible 3rd party and fly their aeroplane instead.
If there's an "argument", it's not "50/50" - it's down to the operator's delegation of the decision to permit the pilot to fly the airplane unaccompanied to the 3rd party. It's the 3rd party's decision, which I guess could be disputed by the pilot with the operator.
Yes the pilot is acting as PIC, but the operator can impose a condition underwhich he is permitted to take the airplane only with the 3rd party accompanying him and under prescribed operating limits - eg. within the circuit. (you think all those airline PICs could "quite rightly decide not to carry anyone" and fly the 737 off to Ibiza without the pax?). If the prospective PIC disputes this condition then he has to find another airplane to fly.
I am not saying that it isn't better for a 28 day check pilot to be an instructor - I think it probably is. But I can also think of scenarios where it might be fine for them not to be. I just don't think the "is it a good idea or not" debate needs to be obfuscated with the PIC stuff you posted.
rgds
421C
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: heathrow
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to add to that I have know owners of 'unusual or rare' aircraft who are far more experienced than any instructor who may be asked to do a check ride. I mean who would be more qualified to give somone a check ride in a two seat Spitfire, an Instructor with 5, 000 hours on Warriors or the aircraft owner who has probaly 100s of hours on type.
I can remember being asked as a young inexperienced instructor to check a guy out in a Cessna 182 which I had never flown. When I said I have never flown a Cessna 182 the CFI said, " well you are an instructor arnt you?"
I can remember being asked as a young inexperienced instructor to check a guy out in a Cessna 182 which I had never flown. When I said I have never flown a Cessna 182 the CFI said, " well you are an instructor arnt you?"
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are very lucky that no one has challenged the situation. A problem could arise if your check pilot stops someone before they even get off the ground and that person asks for the authority that they have to comment on another qualified pilots ability, what training they completed and to what standard they are certified.
It is also only works in group situations where the checking pilot is willing to pay part of the costs of the flight that they have been asked to check a pilot on.
You could never let anyone else know that you did not think the pilot was up to scratch as such a statement could be defamatory and as a private pilot with no credibility in checking or training you would not be off to a good start.
if that person goes and hires your neighbour's aircraft and wrecks it, your neighbour may reasonably ask you why you failed to let them know or why you failed to record the poor performance in the pilot's logbook.
J.